kshapero
South Florida Man
I know what I am about to say will start a vigorous discussion (or just ignore me) but since all these cameras give almost the exact same results why not jump on Pentax's new offering. Brass, baby!!!
BTW I was the guy in high school who could not tell monaural from stereo.
BTW I was the guy in high school who could not tell monaural from stereo.
jwicaksana
Jakarta, Indonesia
The MX name itself is a good selling point for us analog buffs.
Although I have seen my fair share of 'X' in camera names this year
Although I have seen my fair share of 'X' in camera names this year
back alley
IMAGES
what's the sensor size?
roundg
Well-known
1/1.7. very disappointing
zuikologist
.........................
Looks great. If the output of the Pentax Q is anything to go by, Pentax will do wonders with this small sensor.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Well yes it is small but I got great shots out of my Ricoh GX200 with the same size sensor. We shall see.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Brassing
steveniphoto
Well-known
im buying it if it can compete with fujis new x20.
btgc
Veteran
How to attach external flash? Brassing is no help here...
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
Up on dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentax-mx-1
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/pentax-mx-1
efix
RF user by conviction
How's that disappointing? 1/1.7" is quite large for a compact.
What I find disappointing is that they're using the venerable MX name for a compact camera instead of something that really steps in the MX's footsteps.
btgc
Veteran
That was large in 2004. Today is 2013 when APS-C is a norm for compact. I realize there are fine cameras based on 1/1.7" sensors but let's say they are still in market because of some other outstanding features, despite small sensor.
Agreed on MX, personally I'm not going to buy digital because of it's name similar to landmark film camera name. Maybe 100 years after film is gone, but for now I just use those old cameras without any sentiments.
Just not feeling this camera... should have been APS-C.
Uhm, no it really isn't.
unixrevolution
Well-known
1/1.7 would have been large for a compact before anybody had heard the name "Sony RX100".
As it is, it's the same size sensor as the Lumix LX7, Canon S110, and Olympus XZ-2. So for a pocketable (and the MX-1 is) zoom compact it's par for the course. Not a huge sensor, but competitive with its rivals. It's actually bigger than the sensor in their Q series mirrorless cameras!
APS-C is in a few select "compacts", like the DP1M and DP2M from Sigma, the Fujifilm X100 and Leica X1/X2, but those are much larger cameras. Hardly "Pocket" cameras. However, Sony's set a new bar to meet with the RX100, cramming a 1" sensor in such a small body, and Pentax is just now playing catch-up.
As it is, it's the same size sensor as the Lumix LX7, Canon S110, and Olympus XZ-2. So for a pocketable (and the MX-1 is) zoom compact it's par for the course. Not a huge sensor, but competitive with its rivals. It's actually bigger than the sensor in their Q series mirrorless cameras!
APS-C is in a few select "compacts", like the DP1M and DP2M from Sigma, the Fujifilm X100 and Leica X1/X2, but those are much larger cameras. Hardly "Pocket" cameras. However, Sony's set a new bar to meet with the RX100, cramming a 1" sensor in such a small body, and Pentax is just now playing catch-up.
efix
RF user by conviction
I guess there are different niches of compacts by now. Classic compacts with small sensors and large sensor compacts. I'd clearly put the MX-1 in the first department. Clearly an APS-C sensor compact is in a different league.
It was still standard at that time. Fuji and Canon have already been using larger P&S sensors (X10 and G1X) for a year or more now. The MX appears to be no more pocketable than the Leica X1/X2.
lam
Well-known
Not gonna lie, I like the brassing, and the shape of the camera. If it performs like a modern GX200 or GRD or something like that it may be one to get in a few years with some brassing
